Curious Socialist SJW

So I'm typically a reddit lurker and one of my friends pointed me this way. I'm curious to hear this subs opinions on a couple things since there seems to be a consensus about some things that I have formed fairly well-educated thoughts on that don't line up with my worldview.
1. This sub and some so-called "bernie bros" hate the idea identity politics because they see class as the uniting struggle. While this is true to some degree there is no doubt that there are intersecting issues (gender, race, sexuality, etc). Why should these be abandoned or ignored? I fully believe ignoring the multifaceted nature of struggle leads to isolating potential comrades

2. Why communism? You don't have to convince me capitalism is bad, I think capitalism corrupts everything. But I'm skeptical about the state running everything too. I tend to think the state should just be a much larger check than it is now. Certain sectors (healthcare) shouldn't be profit motivated but allowing some people to make some more money than others so long as basic needs are covered seems fine. Why can't the CEO of the company make 1/m a year while base employees make 400k?

Hopefully get some well thought out responses to this.

Attached: tenor.gif (412x318, 838.7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Fuck off to reddit

we don't need boon peoples

no more boon peoples

bye bye baboon peoples

Eeeh, don't pay attention to the idiots that responded already. Wait few minutes and I'm going to answer your questions the best I can.

While it's true that to reduce everything to class is dumb, going the other way just makes the problem worse. I hate to strawman but what comes to mind is the article where a rich women said something close to "My struggle is caused by both being rich and a women". Now it isn't that I don't think women have no struggles, but most of the time the most important topic, which is class, goes on the wayside for Identity politics. This doesn't help anyon. I don't want to live in a society in which I'm exploited but it's ok because everyone from women to blacks do it.

Well communism isn't about everyone having the same pay and being exacly equal. To quote Marx

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, orcan labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity,otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequallabor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but ittacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. Itis, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consistonly in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be differentindividuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they arebrought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the presentcase, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and soforth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, onewill in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all thesedefects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."

What we want is to stop exploitation which exist under capitalism. A worker doesn't work for himself, he works beyond what is needed for him to live just to make capitalist gain more capital. Since a laborer doesn't have access to the means of production, which ranges from factory to natural recources, the only thing which he can sell is his labor. Capitalist uses that lack of power to make laborers work for him by which you work unecessary long hours just to make a capitalist richer. They also are a class which has different wants than the working class does. Communism is the working class taking control of means of production by which it abolishes class all together. Why would you support it? Less working hours in the future, free healthcare, end to imperialist wars, etc.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Attached: union.jpg (637x900, 290.98K)

I don't think we're opposed to all social issues so much as we oppose identity politics that is devoid of any understanding of class. A movement that denies or ignores the underlying class character of identity struggles is wastes people energy on bandaid fixes and, worse, is often used by liberals and reactionaries to back some reactionary cause by linking it in some tenuous way to identity politics. The "Berniebros" thing was a perfect example of this. Support the corrupt neoliberal imperialist because the social democrat is apparently the favorite of white male "berniebros". Intersectionality is liberal false consciousness and an idealist vulgarization of materialist dialectics. There aren't abstract "oppressions" floating through the void that sometime intersect here and there. We need to understand that human societies are, at their foundations, economic entities and the economic factors that undergird our society heavily shapes the social and ideological space. We also need to understand our societies as living processes rather than some amalgamation of ideals and abstractions.

Attached: 1200px-Marx_Engels_Lenin.svg.png (1200x976, 106.92K)


Attached: Friedrich_Engels_portrait_(cropped).jpg (220x330, 21.53K)

First of all, you are not a socialist you are a social democrat. Socialism isn't 'big government'.
1. Marxists do not 'ignore' other struggles. They simply recognise that the classes in relation to the modes of production is the dominant struggle in society that will lead to the collapse of capitalist society and the rise of post-capitalist societies. Other struggles such as racism are a result of the productive base that gives rise to them. Thus to be pro-worker you must be anti-racist and support all worker struggles but those things cannot take precedent over class struggle. A working class black gay woman's best chance at freedom and equality is a socialist one. She also as more in common with a working class white man than Michelle Obama.

2. Read Marx.
What you are describing in terms of income is a common misconception about socialism that it is based upon equality of outcome. Communism is a society without class, that does not mean that a person that works more or produces more value does not earn more. Rejecting capitalism would lead to a more efficient society that rewards people for the work they do rather than if they happen to own property. For instance, with your example, if a person generates enough value for society then they could earn 1 million a year while another earns 400k. However, in current society the CEO works less than an employee and does not generate value themselves yet they earn a large proportion more because they happen to own the factory that the employee works in.

Actual proportion is closer to 1:300

is this a new meme

Attached: 797a9a82.jpg (464x401, 10.38K)

I feel sick just looking at it. Yuck.

Attached: y tho.jpg (1813x2111, 864.88K)

She's hot, what's her name?

Big Red.

Zig Forums takes the bait again

Attached: 4AA95E04-21E6-48F7-827A-6CBA7848BC15.jpeg (1200x800, 135.25K)

The thing you have to realize is that none of our positions come from a baseless spontaneous idea that things aught to be a certain way just because thats how they should be. There is no morality being injected to say 'this is wrong' or 'this is right', or to say that humans should be treated this way or that way just because its the right way to treat humans.

Everything stems from historical materialism, the philosophical foundation which analyzes human society through history from a materialist perspective. Which is to say, mainly, that the societies social characteristics will be based on the material conditions that society lives in, their actions will be based on these characteristics, and these actions will modify those material conditions in some way thus causing the society to change as well.

As far as your questions, ill address 2 first because it can help illustrate our line of thinking to make 1 easier to understand:
No communist says 'we should do communism'. Communism is seen as the inevitable end result of the cycles mentioned above, of society responding to its conditions, and its conditions being modified by society. Communism in its basic primitive state, known as primitive communism or communalism, is the productive and societal structure humans humans have spent most of their existence as. It is what we evolved for. It is the reason, for example, science tells us humans can only keep track of so many other humans and maintain them in their social circle. We are most comfortable living in this way.

However technology, namely agriculture, was invented, and set us off on this process. First, the extra food allowed for the capture of prisoners, and ability to keep slaves. Now one group could not just claim anothers territory or steal from them, but actually enslave them. This is the foundation of the slave system, which was the first progressive step we took on the path from communalism to communism. This takes us through feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. Socialism results in the society which finally creates the material conditions necessary for us to exist in our advanced technologically sophisticated age while structuring ourselves communally (a thing that is not possible before, because small groups are vulnerable to big groups, and as long as the ability to subjugate exists, unless the benefit of subjugating others no longer exists, the small group will not survive).
So there is no argument 'for communism', communism is just what will happen eventually.

Now as i said, there is a progression (this is where the term 'progressive' comes from) of relations of production; slave system, feudalism, capitalism, socialism; which exists between the two manifestations of humans natural social structuring and production relationship (both kinds of communism). The steps which shift one system to another inevitably are driven by conflict, as those who benefit from one system struggle to secure their place and power from those who suffer under it. The thing that differentiates those who benefit from those who dont is how you draw class lines. Inequalities between classes get worse as a system continues, building to inevitable conflict and revolutions.

Some examples of this in action. The feudal era started out with small groups warring with each other over resources. Eventually power was consolidated and such open conflict became something less common, as it was often not profitable or too risky. This resulted in interactions between groups to become more economic in nature. The conflict was still there, but it was not as onesidedly martial. The trade gave the merchant class a boost, and soon people who were not nobles, who were not depending on their distinct legal class, which gave them privileges over all lower classes, began to get quite powerful, even in some cases far more powerful than most of the nobility. The social landscape changed, where you had this class, the beourgoise, resenting the fact that despite all their ambitions, successess, and fortunes, even a bankrupt petty nobleman had special treatment, special legal protections. This is where the liberal idea of legal equality comes from. All those stories you were told growing up which featured 'nobody being above the law!' is a reflection of this. Their ethical sensibility was shaped by the social characteristics of their time. Eventually they cut off a bunch of heads and became the new ruling class. Now we enjoy equal (on paper) laws.
Because the new ruling class were merchants and businessmen who gained their power not through noble blood but through the accumulation of wealth, the nature of the system, capitalism, under them created the industrial revolution as it sought ever more wealth accumulation.
The society capitalism created, however, saw people moving more and more to cities, into great factories and closer living conditions. The social characteristics of this, social living, social working, social production, lead to the sentiment of social ownership as well, socialism, which we saw growing in the 19th and early 20th century because the great wars gave capitalists enough of a boost to dampen the downsides of late stage capitalism long enough that people did not rebel.

As you see, the progression of systems, the effect of the material conditions on society, and the changes society has on its material conditions, create a series of progressive steps. Capitalism was good when it was an advancement over feudalism, but it is bad now for numerous reasons. Socialism is good now, but it too will need to give way to communism one day. Yes, even slavery was good in its time, because it was the step that came after what was before, and before what came after. There is no eternal ethical praise or condemnation, only what makes sense to the society at the time, as it drives ever forward.

Now as far as your first question. When ever people make claims that some identity group is being opressed or has privledge or such, how do they justify these statements? What evidence do they provide? It almost always involves some economic measure. They will prove certain group is having problems because those people, when taken as a group, are averaging less in one thing or another.
Identity politics is a liberal idea, because it effectively embraces the liberals idea that legal equality is equality full stop. This is a reasoning pushed by the rulers under capitalism, so they can say 'we are all equal now so my abundances are just because of my own personal virtues and skill!'. Likewise, to maintain the idea that legal equality is equality, to explain any discrepancies they must invent some sinister force which is actively and destructively sabotaging the system which would clearly result in paradise for all otherwise. There is where ideas of racism, sexism, and other things grow from. The reason there are not fewer female CEOs is because male CEOs are conspiring against them! The reason there are fewer female coders is toxic male environment! The reason there are more blacks in prison is because they are disproportionately targeted!
But what are all these things? The complaint is that classess are skewed, when the real goal is abolishing class entirely! What purpose then is served by focusing on these claims, not even to the point of questioning their validly or accepting them, when it is all moot in the context of obtaining social equality?

Social equality, says the materialist, is when there are no legal classes, as the liberal revolution brought us, to make all equal in law, and when there are no production classes, as socialism brings, to make all equal in production. You see untill production equality is accomplished, legal equality exists only in theory.

It must be stressed, the stance is not 'these things are less important', its that 'these things do not exist, it is a statistical trick, misrepresenting class struggle as something else to lead people away from class struggle'. There are of course people who are racist, and sexist, but these things alone do not cause any problems, it is only social inequality that causes problems. The poor black woman is not suffering from being black or from being a woman, she is suffering from being poor. If she was socially equal, it wouldn't matter what other people thought about her being black or being a woman because her security and quality of life would be assured regardless and she could simply tell them to go fuck themselves.

Now, as you might recall, i said communism is inevitable. In fact this progression will occur regardless of if there are any communists, any historical materialists, or anyone even noticing it occurring. Why bother ourselves with it then?
These transitions are always violent, you will never see a ruling class give up power willingly. Revolutions create instability, which generally make life crappy for a while. The purpose then, is to try and mitigate things. The longer it takes to change, the harder the change will be. After the change, the more people who know what the next step should be the less likely missteps which will inevitably collapse on themselves and revert (fascism for example) but only after even more periods of suffering are. It is therefore fully justified by ones own self interest, and people acting in their own self interest is one of the things historical materialism counts on.

before* the great wars

One point that has not thusfar been addressed is the reason for ignoring identitarian causes. The short answer is that they lead nowhere. Feminism will never topple the "patriarchy," because the supposed patriarchy is nothing but a vague concept. Minorities will never be made "equal" to the problematic cis-het white male shitlords, because the equality that intersectional liberals strive for is a fluid statistical abstraction between ill-defined identity groups. You can't defeat immaterial concepts such as gender and race except by acknowledging that you really don't need to.

Another reason to ignore identitarian causes is that those causes are ultimately predicated upon false opposition. There is nothing definative about being a woman that puts a person's interests at odds with a man or vice versa. The same is true of races and other such identity groups–they do not describe a set of interests that are held by individuals who claim them. Thus, engaging these false oppositions does nothing but to reify divisive concepts and to obfuscate the actual social forces that are at work.

One more thing, you talk about how ignoring identitarian issues isolates them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Minorities can see that the economic structures in place run contrary to their own interests just as well as everyone else can. They do not need to have everything couched in terms of their struggle or blamed on a racist, sexist, ableist, neurotypical, evil big bad. In fact, it's insulting. Furthermore, they are also capable of recognizing that racism/sexism/transphobia are not what keeps making their rent go up or what keeps their employers from offering health care coverage. I suspect that is why organizations that are dedicated to social justice tend to be so lily white.

The law has fuck-all to do with it.

1. Sorry but the economic left got backstabed to much to by the indentitarians for there to be any trust left. Class struggle cannot be in competition for political energy, and that is what this is about. As far as Race goes that doesn't exist biologically, to state otherwise is racist. You can point out that there are people with different ethnic features, skin,tone etc, and that discrimination based on this should be abolished. the concept of race basically is economic, because it was introduced by the slave trade to justify treating some people as property, much like cattle. There still are consequence from the era of slavery today and some vestiges remain that have to be abolished. But reifying the race category that got invented by the slavers into an identity is counter productive, it solidifies the wedge where by different race identity groups can be played against each other against their own economic interests. As far sex related politics goes, that has degenerated into a culture war and now there are no more demands for equality and abolishment of discrimination that remain, instead there are ingroup outgroup tribal hostilities, where asserting the privilege of one group over another has become the goal.

2. Capitalism basically is increasingly less viable, it can't really commodify information because the cost of reproduction of information is zero, what has taken the place is an inversion where you are the commodity, and the information about you is the leach to keep it that way. There are other reasons, like for example capitalism cannot reckon with the limitations of the biosphere, you can't sell a sustainable economy on the market because the costs of all the damage got externalised, The fossil fuel companies have stated publicly that they will protect profit against all reason, they made it clear they can only be defeated. Given that currently we see rearmament and increasing tensions it might be that a capitalist crisis will drive the system into WW3. On a more theoretical level, we want to abolish money market schemes, because they inevitably produce the distribution of wealth and income you see today it might be possible to counter act this temporarily, but not in the long run. We will however support all measures that improve the conditions of the working class. But in the end the only option is to plan the economy according material reality. Consider that there were somewhat socially responsible welfare mixed systems and capitalists have been seeking to destroy every democratic right and every economic justice gain, from the day they were introduced. To keep this possibility open seem like a case of Stockholm syndrome.

Because these problems can only be fixed by fixing the material conditions of society. It's Like complaining about getting pissed on then fighting about who has the lest amount on them instead of getting out of the piss hole and then cleaning yourself because people are gonna keep pissing on you if you lay there arguing. These issues almost all of them are caused by Capitalism if you eliminate Capitalism many of these problems will go especially with an actual Socialist government who can address these issues unlike a Capitalist state where these issues are mostly left to fester/hardly addressed. I can't even count the amount of Marxist groups iv'e seen collapse from infighting due to stupid shit or well read and smart comrades (Cockshot) have all their ideas and theory thrown out because trans issue #23.
Try the otherway around. Thousands if not millions of working class individuals are being turned/alienated away by the small minority of actually insane sjw's. Somehow the idea of implementing Socialism got stuck behind a bunch of social issues and to even think of putting class issues above gender issues is somehow "alienating" when the stereotype of a left winger is a rabid blue haired trans person who wants more female CEO's and Black Cops before abolishing CEO's and Cops.
Because Socialism and Communism are actually more Democratic and involve the Proletariat as a whole much more, what we have is a false illusion of freedom and democracy.
What are non transferable labor vouches for 500? Who even started this stupid idea of Socialism/Communism making everyone exactly equal instead of making the playing field actually fair.

Read the entire section.
As lenin clearly states, social equality requires two things;
The abolition of legal class
The abolition of production class

Both are required for social equality. We are half way there.

Well, put it this way. No matter how much the identity crowd scream or campaign to have people who disagree with them socially destroyed on Twitter, neo-liberal elites like Macron look on and laugh; and ultimately they keep their positions.

I consider it a fucking joke if anyone who considers themselves a Leftist, condones the existence of the European Union. Instead of a national bourgeoise engaging in resource extraction and constantly stealing from the poor, now you've got this giant, conglomerated oligarchy of them doing it on an international level; with less accountability and more concentration of power than ever before.

But please, let's keep arguing about the fact that there are seperate icons for males and females on toilet doors; because as we all know, those are the *really* important issues.

Shitty b8 I'm sure but

Divisive rhetoric within our ranks is counter revolutionary. After the revolution we can discuss these issues further and propose solutions (I think with proper education prejudice can be eradicated in 1-2 generations.) But until the revolution succeeds, divisive rhetoric is shooting ourselves in the foot.